Participatory Governance in the EU

Lindgren, Karl‐Oskar; Persson, Thomas

doi:10.1057/9780230347793

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Attention can be obtained through proactive NGO advocacy, whereas credibility can be increased by choosing effective and appropriate venues and frames -two significant aspects of the larger agenda-setting process. Recent analyses focusing on civil society in the EU have highlighted the value of such participation for the efficiency and legitimacy of EU policies, but also pointed out the problematic aspects of institutionalized civil society inclusion ranging from NGO-representational questions to the input-/output-legitimacy issues present in NGO inclusion into EU governance (Steffek et al, 2008;Beyers et al, 2009;Kohler-Koch, 2010;Lindgren and Persson, 2011).…”

Section: Theoretical Overviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Access and agenda-setting in the European Union: Advocacy NGOs in comparative perspective

Thiel

Uçarer

2014

Int Groups Adv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the European Union (EU), rights advocacy NGOs increasingly seek to influence supranational policy making. The success of immigration and asylum NGOs in inserting themselves into policy making depends on existing (in)formal ties to EU institutions. In contrast, human rights-based NGOs received institutional support through the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) containing a civil society platform that aggregates NGO claims. This article applies a comparative framework derived from the literature on transnational advocacy, using the distinction between venues and frames as starting points for analysis. It compares both sets of NGOs, exploring issues of institutional access and agenda-setting, and examines the strategies and objectives of advocacy NGOs in these two different political settings: while immigration and asylum advocates rely mainly on pluralistic lobbying strategies and pre-given, exogenous institutional opportunity structures, Fundamental Rights Platform NGOs engage in a novel approach in which civil society actors endogenously co-constitute aspects of participatory governance in the EU. On the basis of interviews with NGOs and EU officials, we conclude that each of these strategies exhibit specific trade-offs based on the nature of the relationship to the EU institutions. It is argued that each type of access has its idiosyncratic drawback: while immigration and asylum advocacy may result in dispersed opportunities to steer outcomes at the EU level, the inclusion of rights-based NGOs in the FRA limits their strategic repertoire. Finally, issue-specificity also conditions agenda-setting as higher issue convergence enables more focused framing, while a diffuse issue spectrum yields weaker frames and authority.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Overviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Access and agenda-setting in the European Union: Advocacy NGOs in comparative perspective

Thiel

Uçarer

2014

Int Groups Adv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the EHL is embedded in the EU's participatory governance (see Chapter 1), and because participation at EHL sites takes place within cultural heritage institutions, we look at it as part of participatory governance. This form of governance aims to create closer connections between citizens and administration by involving citizens in governmental processes through various participatory practices that are increasingly organized by different levels of administration (Papadopoulos and Warn 2007;Saurugger 2010;Lindgren and Persson 2011;Michels 2011;Moini 2011). Several layers of EU participatory governance are involved in the EHL, from the EU institutions and the national, regional, and local authorities to the staff members and visitors of the sites.…”

Section: Inclusive and Exclusive Heritagementioning

confidence: 99%

Creating and Governing Cultural Heritage in the European Union

Turunen¹,

Kaasik-Krogerus²,

Lähdesmäki³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the last couple of decades, participation has become a popular concept at different levels of administration from local and national to European and global, and in this “participatory turn” (Saurugger, 2010), new forms, channels and interpretations of participation have emerged, both bottom-up (civic activity) and top-down (organised by the administration). The latter type of participatory practices, such as the EU projects addressed here, have been generated increasingly within so-called new, multilevel or participatory governance (Lindgren and Persson, 2011; Michels, 2011; Moini, 2011; Newman, 2005; Newman and Clarke, 2009; Nousiainen and Mäkinen, 2015; Papadopoulos and Warin, 2007; Parkins and Sinclair, 2014). They aim to engage actors from various levels and spheres in policy-making through auditions, projects and partnerships without coercion but instead by appealing to their free will to conduct their conduct in a suitable way (Cruikshank, 1999: 4; Dean, 1999: 10–16, 67; Rose, 1999a: 69; Walters and Haahr, 2005: 118–119).…”

Section: Scales Of Participation and Citizenshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scales of participation and multi-scalar citizenship in EU participatory governance

Mäkinen

2020

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU still has a democratic deficit and its legitimacy is strongly questioned. This reveals the importance of citizenship and participation in the context of the challenges the EU faces today. The article contributes to the current discussions on the shifting frameworks of participation and citizenship through empirical research into the EU’s participatory governance. It asks how participation is framed in terms of scale and how these scalar framings are used to formulate citizenship in selected projects funded by the EU programmes on citizenship and culture. This microlevel analysis yields new insights into the politics of scale in the EU’s multilevel participatory governance. Frame analysis of the texts produced in these EU projects indicates how the combination of European and local scales is articulated to shape and regulate participation, citizenship and the EU as a community. The article therefore introduces a new concept, Euro-local scale, to make sense of this rehierarchisation of scales in the EU’s participatory governance.

show abstract

Participatory Governance in the EU

Cited by 14 publications

References 85 publications

Access and agenda-setting in the European Union: Advocacy NGOs in comparative perspective

Access and agenda-setting in the European Union: Advocacy NGOs in comparative perspective

Creating and Governing Cultural Heritage in the European Union

Scales of participation and multi-scalar citizenship in EU participatory governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About